Right on the money -- the Civil War was fought over economics and the consolidation of Federal Power, slavery was a secondary issue.
Ron Paul:..."Besides, the Civil War was to prove that we had a very, very strong centralized federal government and thats what it did. It rejected the notion that states were a sovereign nation. The people who disagree want to turn around and say, Oh, yes, those guys just wanted to protect slavery. But thats just a cop-out if you look at this whole idea of what happened in our country because Lincoln really believed in the centralized state. He was a Hamiltonian type and objected to everything Jefferson wanted."
Two people come out with the same idea, but if it comes out of Ron Paul's mouth, it's just got to be "nuts" here.
RP may have been wrong about "buying off the slaves", given that Condor says it was later attempted and rejected, but he wasn't wrong about the rest. And we have been living with the results of that consolidation of Federal Power and erosion of State's rights ever since.
That erosion of States rights is what has allowed Obama and the Democrats to declare the healthcare issue and virtually everything they want to use to consolidate more power to the Federal government, to be "interstate commerce".
Yes, Jim, "sometimes you just just have to fight for freedom" but nothing guarantees that freedom like the US Constitution. And when we let government ignore it by white-washing the reasons for stomping on it -- like saying "the Civil War abolish slavery", when that wasn't really true --- then we are stomping on the very things that guarantee our Liberty. And I applaud whoever reminds of the truth of that, be it Ron Paul, Sarah Palin or anyone else.
Bump.
Remove slavery from the equation, and you still wouldn’t have had a Civil War.
Remove everything else but slavery from the equation, and you’d still have had a Civil War.
Bottom line.